Lucius wrote:Isn't managing water enough tedious micromanagement?? No, of course not to some folks. Personally I'm happy that water is the only basic need that needs managed and it sounds like they are doing a good job of having it a background mechanic and not something I have to click every 90 seconds.

So as to why not, it's because the ultra-realistic, survivalist crowd doesn't make up a large enough percentage to warrant food, sleep deprivation, and potty breaks. Be happy you got water management.

Micromanagement? It's essentially buying fuel for your [s]starship[/s] rangers so they can move about the map. It's likely to be as involved as "Find Water", "Mouseover water", "Click water with your new canteen cursor" to gather if not a "fill canteen" option in the store. I'm sorry but that's not micromanaging. Micromanaging would be having to futz with the waters purity, it's distribution across the party, as well as rationing the water across different terrain types to prevent over-hydration or dehydration.

I think thats what Lucius was actually saying.

We had a few people in these boards who wanted the game to be pure survivalism, with need for water, food, sleep, and I think even toilet breaks were suggested(altho I believe flippantly).

Lucius is reacting somewhat to that.

I think the Canteen mechanic is good, because it allows you to not be bothered by it normally, but in situations where it is important(middle of the desert for example) you have to use the canteen and manage the water levels.

Just to jump in, I know some people want their post war rpgs to feel gritty and like they need to scavenge to survive, while other people would prefer not to micromanage. My question is, can it simply be converted to an on/off setting? I mean why not include food as a really low healing item for the people that don't want to micromanage, and have a 'survival' setting or something similar that requires you to sustain a certain amount of nutrition that you would get from the food instead? It would give people something to spend the small pocket change of currency on between ammo and that really big gun they're always saving up for by introducing options for other basic needs like food, a bedroll, maybe matches to make a cooking fire. To me, there is nothing more unsatisfying in game than having money and nothing to spend it on, it just feels like it cheapens the efforts I went through to get it.

mortevon wrote:My question is, can it simply be converted to an on/off setting?

I would rather have them make one good game than two half-baked ones. "Just make it an option" is rarely a good design decision.

I hardly see how it's a bad idea or how it requires two different games. It's no different than the cursing and gore settings that could be toned down or cranked up in the early games, or the "Hardcore" mode that could be switched on or off in New Vegas. None of that ever interfered with the games it only served to better fit the tastes and preference of individual gamers, and in the end Wasteland and the entire kickstarter concept is meant to be a game funded by the fans, for the fans. If it's a simple enough option, and can potentially satisfy both sides of the division on the topic, then why not go for it?

mortevon wrote:It's no different than the cursing and gore settings that could be toned down or cranked up in the early games

It's VERY different. These are cosmetic effects that have zero impact on gameplay.

or the "Hardcore" mode that could be switched on or off in New Vegas

NV Hardcore was a separate game environment that required additional development, and yes, it was a significant departure from the default game mode. Also, NV Hardcore pretty much sucked, because despite the extra development time spent on it, it was shoehorned into a game that wasn't really designed for it. Now that you mention it, NV Hardcore was feeble enough that it's actually a stronger argument AGAINST split design than for it.

Last edited by Zombra on April 6th, 2013, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Also at its heart this isn't a survivalist game. The people have been living in this world all their lives. If they don't have some basic survival instincts they would already be dead.

We know they will have a canteen that will be useful when travelling in water poor areas, but other than that it appears that most survivalist type stuff will be automatic. Its not meant to be a survival sim, like Day Z or something.

I hardly see how it's a bad idea or how it requires two different games. It's no different than the cursing and gore settings that could be toned down or cranked up in the early games, or the "Hardcore" mode that could be switched on or off in New Vegas.

NV isn't a good example. And they had bigger team and much more money to go with. Not that your idea is bad, if implemented right it will be good for a second playthrough and expand scavenging gameplay and everything, but you will have to give them a few more millions to create and balance a new mechanic. They need much more than you think to do it. From UI elements to tons of new items that need to have a completly different loot table, effects and much more. I don't even speak about the fact that if they want to do it right they will have to rebalance the whole game.

Eh, I could go back and forth with counter points, such as the fact that FO3 had no hardcore mode, but that was easily added with fan mods in the form of the Basic Needs module but... seeing the number of counter points against the idea I would sooner just withdraw it. Wasteland is, if nothing else, a game being made for the fans and if so many are opposed to the idea of including thirst and starvation in the game, then who am I to argue against them? It was personal preference, but I don't speak for the many, and if nothing else there may be future fan made modules for the sake of personal preference.

mortevon wrote:such as the fact that FO3 had no hardcore mode, but that was easily added with fan mods

Well, that's mods. Mods can add anything, regardless of if it's a good idea or not. There's a "nude assassin" mod for Diablo 2, for instance (no, seriously, this exists).

Wasteland is, if nothing else, a game being made for the fans and if so many are opposed to the idea of including thirst and starvation in the game, then who am I to argue against them?

To be fair, much of the hostility towards it comes from the type of game Wasteland was and Wasteland 2 is expected to be. Survival in Wasteland isn't so much about base needs (like water and food) than it is about staying alive in the face of deadly enemies. Depending on how you look at it, survival is a more macro affair in Wasteland: the game assumes your Rangers can refill a canteen and remember to eat because you, the player, are concerned about the survival of the human race as a whole, instead of worrying about messy little details like refilling magazines or eating lunch.

It seems like many people have mentally twined "post apocalypse" with "survival game", but that doesn't need to be the case.

Drool wrote:It seems like many people have mentally twined "post apocalypse" with "survival game", but that doesn't need to be the case.

Ya know, what I really enjoyed about Fallout 1 & 2 was that you're exploring a world that doesn't take place the day after the bombs fell, but a long time after, where society has already reformed. Where you get to travel around to see what kind of societies have rises from the ashes of anarchy and deal with the problems that have arisen.

Given the state of the original Wasteland, I would expect that communities, trade routes, and basic necessities have already been established. But as you already stated the difficulty in the game should come from avoiding raiders, not from searching for water.